Lloyd and Dunne v Brown

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 June 1937
• Date: 11 June 1937
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Lloyd and Dunne v. Brown.

MARY LLOYD and MARY JOSEPHINE DUNNE

Plaintiffs

and

PATRICK BROWN

Defendant.

Practice - Coats - Action of ejectment brought in the High Court - Ejectment brought for forfeiture on breach of condition in lease - Poor Law Valuation of premises under £60 - Whether action could have been commenced in the Circuit Court - Jurisdiction of Circuit Court in ejectment proceedings - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924) sects. 48, 51 and 56 - Courts of Justice Act, 1936 (No. 48 of 1936), sect. 12, sub-sect. 1 (g).

Motion to review taxation.

The plaintiffs, Mary Lloyd and Mary Josephine Dunne, issued a plenary summons, dated the 5th day of December, 1936, against the defendant, Patrick Brown, to recover possession of the ground floor of the premises known as No. 23 South Circular Road, Islandbridge, in the City of Dublin.

No appearance was entered by the defendant, and the plaintiffs delivered a statement of claim, by filing the same in the Central Office, which set out the facts as follows:—

"1. By agreement in writing, dated the 17th day of September, 1935, and made between the plaintiffs of the first part, and the defendant of the second part, and Bernard Brown, therein referred to as 'the Guarantor,' of the third part, the plaintiffs let to the defendant all that and those the shop premises comprising the lock-up shop, w.c., and lavatory attached thereto, being the ground floor of the premises known as No. 23 South Circular Road, Islandbridge, in the City of Dublin, for a term of five years at the yearly rent of one hundred and forty-four pounds (£144) payable monthly in advance by monthly instalments of £12, on the 23rd day of each month.

2. By the said agreement, the defendant covenanted to pay the said rent by monthly instalments of £12 each in advance on the 23rd day in each month. The agreement also contained a clause entitling the plaintiff to re-enter the premises in case any monthly instalment of the said rent was more than fourteen days in arrear.

3. The defendant took possession of the said premises under the said agreement, and is still in possession thereof. The defendant did not pay the monthly instalment of rent due the 23rd day of October, 1936, on that date or within fourteen days from that date."

The plaintiffs claimed possession of the premises, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

On the 22nd February, 1937, the defendant vacated the premises. On the same day the plaintiffs served notice on the defendant that they would apply for judgment for the costs of the action.

Edwin M. Lloyd, solicitor for the plaintiffs, made an affidavit, filed on the 12th February, 1937, in support of the motion for judgment, in which he stated that on the 7th day of December, 1936, the defendant had called to his office and had paid him the sum of £12; that he (the plaintiffs' solicitor) then informed the defendant that he would have to pay the costs of the action, and that he (the plaintiffs' solicitor) accepted the said sum of £12 on account of the arrears of rent then due by the defendant and the costs of the action. The affidavit further stated that the defendant had then requested to be furnished with particulars of the costs, and that, on the 2nd January, 1937, particulars of the costs then due by the defendant had been furnished to him, but that no communication had been received from him in respect of same. The...